ILPC 2027

The release of data on performance management outcomes across the Civil Service has demonstrated divergent outcomes between different groups of employees, suggesting discriminatory outcomes across a number of protected characteristics (French, 2016). The limitations of this data however, means that the exact relationships between these statistically significant correlations remains unclear, and more research is needed to explain how such outcomes have occurred.

Surprisingly, as Taylor (2013) has indicated, there has been relatively little critical analysis of performance management systems, particularly relating to discriminatory outcomes. The main body of research comes from the US into appraisal systems which have provided some insight into the  

Firstly, critiques appeared of earlier research focused upon discrepancies between raters’ perceptions of stereotypical performers and fit with roles as well as upon replicating appraisal situations in experiments, focusing more upon the potential discriminatory views of the raters themselves (Dipboye, 1985). Greenhaus et al (1990), from their paired comparison of (828) black and white managers, observed that black managers were given less discretion in their roles and had lower feelings of acceptance, while being rated lower by line managers on these aspects of job performance. They hypothesised that there was a presence of bias in the rating process, such that ‘it is possible that white supervisors used race rather than work related cues in assessing the managers’ job performance’ (ibid.:80).

Secondly, research has also shifted away from considering the structure of the appraisal and performance management systems. Detailed comparative research by Henessey and Barnadin (2003) indicated that improvements to an appraisal system (in relation to more detailed criteria and reducing subjectivity of assessment) had a rather limited effect on variations in ratings according to gender or race. Instead the focus of appraisal research shifted to consider the importance of the organisational context (Levy and Williams, 2004). Tziner and Murphy (1999) highlighted that raters, in general, would be affected by the overall confidence in the performance appraisal system, the extent to which the rating of staff would be linked to their own personal goals (i,e. meeting higher managerial targets) and their own skill and (dis)comfort in conducting appraisals. Following from this, in the case of differentiation of ratings by race, the issue of ‘accountability’ within an organisation is stressed. This is based upon the argument that the scope for individual prejudice to inform performance appraisal could be limited or reinforced by the extent to which such prejudices were perceived to be salient, or subject to challenge, within the organisation.

While this research is useful in identifying potential issues in interpreting findings and considering research design, it is also important to recognise that this research was conducted in a different political, economic and legal context and were themselves based upon empirical research within specific organistional contexts. In this respect, examining and interpreting research from the UK civil service needs to recognise the context of the political economic context, notably austerity and its implications for public sector employment and terms and conditions, and in the design and operation of the PM systems themselves.

While this cries out for detailed qualitative case study research, this paper, based upon a survey of PCS members provides a necessary (if not sufficient) first step in developing such an analysis. The paper reports the findings from an internet survey of 27,090 (22.3% response rate) civil service employees conducted in April 2016. The first part of the paper covers members' views on the operation of PM in their part of the Civil Service and its impact on their work, notably teamworking, forced distributions and relationships with line management. Secondly, the paper looks at members perceptions on the discriminatory operation of PM, focusing upon issues of favouratism and perceptions as to which groups of workers are better or worse affected by PM. The final part of the paper then looks at the line managers' views of PM in practice and examines, in particular the relevance of PM targets to actual work and work requirements. Although the paper is focused upon reporting responses to closed questions on these aspects of PM, it is supported by a large amount of qualitative data obtained through open questions in the survey.